Order RE: Claim Against Defendant Set for IN-Chambers Status

Public Court Documents
February 26, 1986

Order RE: Claim Against Defendant Set for IN-Chambers Status preview

5 pages

Cite this item

  • Case Files, Dillard v. Crenshaw County Hardbacks. Order RE: Claim Against Defendant Set for IN-Chambers Status, 1986. 63984360-b9d8-ef11-a730-7c1e5218a39c. LDF Archives, Thurgood Marshall Institute. https://ldfrecollection.org/archives/archives-search/archives-item/d6c5b5be-50e2-4930-9c7e-7f9e229e6d92/order-re-claim-against-defendant-set-for-in-chambers-status. Accessed April 06, 2025.

    Copied!

    i h P 
| \ / 

on) 

® » Re 
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE FILED 

MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA, NORTHERN DIVISION FEB 92 1 1986 

U.S. DIST. COCItpy, ~~ 

JOHN DILLARD, et al., DEPUTY CLERK, BY, 

Plaintiffs, 

Vv. CIVIL ACTION NO. 85-T-1332-N 

CRENSHAW COUNTY, etc., et al., 

(
R
E
I
N
 

S
L
 
WS
 
W
A
 
W
N
 

4 

Defendants. 

ORDER 

For good cause, it is ORDERED: 

(1) That the plaintiffs' February 19, 1986, motion to shorten 

time is granted and that the defendants are DIRECTED to answer the 

plaintiffs' second discovery request by February 28, 1986; 

(2) That the plaintiffs' February 20, 1986, motion for leave to 

amend the complaint to add Lee County is granted, with leave to the present 

defendants to file within seven days from the date of this order an 

objection to the allowance of the amendment, if said defendants so desire; 

(3) That the plaintiffs show cause, if any there be, in writing 

within seven days from the date of this order as to why defendant Richard I. 

Proctor's February 18, 1986, motion to be excused from further active 

participation in these proceedings should not be granted. 

It is further ORDERED that the claim against defendant Lee County 

is set for an in-chambers status conference on February 25, 1986, at 4:00 

p.m. at the federal court house in Montgomery, Alabama. Only counsel for 

the plaintiffs and counsel for Lee County need be present. 

DONE, this the 21st day of February, 1986. 

  

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE ~~  



BLACKSHER, MENEFEE & STEIN, P.A. 

ATTORNEYS AT LAW 

405 VAN ANTWERP BUILDING 

  

P. O. BOX 1051 

MOBILE, ALABAMA 36633-1051 

JAMES U. BLACKSHER February 26, 1986 TELEPHONE 
LARRY T. MENEFEE (205) 433-2000 

GREGORY B. STEIN 
WANDA J COCHRAN 

Mr. Thomas C. Caver, Clerk 
United States District Court 
Middle District of Alabama 
P. 0, Box 711 
Montgomery, Alabama 36101 

RE: Dillard, et al. v. Crenshaw County, Alabama, et al. 
C. A. No. 85-T-1332-N 
  

Dear Mr. Caver: 

Please file the enclosed Order Tentatively Approving Compromise 
and Requiring Notice to the Class in the subject action as an 
attachment to the Joint Motion for Notice and Approval of 
Proposed Compromise and Settlement which you should have 
received today by separate cover from Alton Turner, counsel 
for Crenshaw County. 

The enclosed order completes the package of settlement papers 
between the plaintiffs and the Crenshaw County Defendants. 
They should include a total of four documents; 

(1) Joint Motion for Nétice and Approval of Proposed 
Compromise and Settlement; 

(2) Proposed Consent Decree Between Plaintiffs and 
Crenshaw County Defendants; 

(3) Notice of Proposed Settlement; and, 

(4) Order Tentatively Approving Compromise and 
Requiring Notice to the Class. 

Please bring these settlement papers to Judge Thompson's 
attention as soon as possible. He has scheduled a conference 
concerning them for Monday, March 3, at 9:00 a.m. 

 



  

Mr. Thomas C. Caver, Clerk 
February 26, 1986 
Page Two 

Best regards. 

Sincerely, 

BLACKSHER, MENEFEE & STEIN, P.A. 

dn [OAC AA 

James U. Blacksher 

JUB:pfm 

Encl. 

cc: All Counsel (w/encl.) 

 



  

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE 
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABMA 

NORTHERN DIVISION 

JOHN DILLARD, et al., ) 

Plaintiffs, ) 

vs. ) CA NO. 85-T-1332-N 

CRENSHAW COUNTY, ALABAMA, ) 
et al., 

Defendants. ) 

ORDER TENTATIVELY APPROVING COMPROMISE 
AND REQUIRING NOTICE TO THE CLASS 

At a conference in chambers on , 
  

counsel for all of the parties informed the Court that they had 

reached a final compromise and settlement of this action and 

sought this Court's tentative approval of its terms. Under the 

terms of the proposed settlement the parties have agreed to the 

entry of an injunction requiring that elections for the Crenshaw 

County Commission be conducted from single-member districts while 

allowing the incumbents to serve their full terms of office. 

Pursuant to 23(b)(2), F.R.C.P., the Court certifies the 

plaintiffs as representatives of the class of all black citizens 

of Crenshaw County. 

The Court is of the opinion that the proposed Consent Decree 

 



  

filed with said Motion is due to be and hereby is approved 

tentatively, subject to any objections by members of the class, 

and that pursuant to Rule 23(e) Fed.R.Civ.P., notice of this 

proposed compromise should be given to the members of the class 

of black citizens in Crenshaw County, Alabama. 

Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that the Defendant 

Crenshaw County, Alabama, cause the attached notice to this order 

to be published in the Luverne Journal once a week for three 

successive weeks prior to , 1986. 
  

It is further ORDERED that copies of the attached notice 

shall be provided by the Defendant Crenshaw County, Alabama, to 

representatives of all local radio and television stations and 

all representatives of media and black community organizations in 

Crenshaw County who may request a copy thereof. 

Thereafter on , 1986, at 
  

o‘clock .m. this Court shall conduct a hearing in 
  

the federal courthouse of Montgomery, Alabama, to consider 

objections by members of the class to the proposed compromise and 

settlement. 

DONE this day of , 198 ___, 
  

  

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Copyright notice

© NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc.

This collection and the tools to navigate it (the “Collection”) are available to the public for general educational and research purposes, as well as to preserve and contextualize the history of the content and materials it contains (the “Materials”). Like other archival collections, such as those found in libraries, LDF owns the physical source Materials that have been digitized for the Collection; however, LDF does not own the underlying copyright or other rights in all items and there are limits on how you can use the Materials. By accessing and using the Material, you acknowledge your agreement to the Terms. If you do not agree, please do not use the Materials.


Additional info

To the extent that LDF includes information about the Materials’ origins or ownership or provides summaries or transcripts of original source Materials, LDF does not warrant or guarantee the accuracy of such information, transcripts or summaries, and shall not be responsible for any inaccuracies.

Return to top